Since ID wants to claim to be a science, it must account for observed phenomena that Darwinian theory accounts for, in this case, the observed commonality between all species. A simple way to put this is: "if there's a fossil gap, what is it a gap in?". The strength of Darwin's argument lies in the easily observed continuity of morphology, function and geological location you see when you match up lifeforms in the geological column, the fossil-established tree of life, and the independently derived DNA mutational clock tree of life.
Since it wants to be a science, unlike the micro-macro argument you are mistakenly assigning to it, ID can't just put blinkers on and and pretend it doesn't have to explain why the fundamental machinery every species uses is nearly identical across the board, to the extent that we can all pretty much eat each other. Darwinian theory provides an answer to these puzzles which can't be ignored so, as the quotes you were offered more than suggest, ID is a potential modification of Darwinian evolutionary theory, not an alternative to it.
ID suggests that God, or little green men, or whatever, descended from the sky and tweaked an ongoing process, not started one up from scratch, over and over. The latter would be the "poof" theory of evolution, which, while possibly true, can't even pretend to have scientific credentials, since it allows us to detect or predict nothing, which puts it outside of science's domain of competence.
I already explained this.
The designer (definitely NOT any recognizable deity, of course) is a bloody, psychopathic, murderous sadist who set out, with malice aforethought, to design an ecosystem that would maximize pain and suffering. I think it will be fairly easy to find confirming evidence for this conjecture, and pretty hard to find disconfirming evidence. Assuming that life forms are intentionally designed.
"unlike the micro-macro argument you are mistakenly assigning to it,"
Believing we descended from apes is hard an argument over micro-macro evolution.